ADVERTISING REGULATIONS

Advertising is the business of conceptualizing, presenting or making available to the

public, through any form of mass media, fact, data or information about the attributes, features,
quality or availability of consumer products, services or credit.

The laws covering advertising rules may vary by region, and according to the type of
product or service being advertised. Generally speaking, the following may be considered
common types of advertising violations:

 Copyright Infringement: Using another company’s copyrighted material in an ad

without their permission may result in a legal violation
 False Advertising: This is involves advertised claims that are not true in connection with
the product or service. In addition, it usually must be shown that the company or
business intended to mislead the public with their advertising
 Deceptive Advertisement: This involves statements that are not necessarily untrue, but
are meant to deceive or mislead the consumer.
 Trademark Counterfeiting: Using or reproducing another company’s trademark or logo
without their permission in an advertisement can lead to a civil lawsuit

ADVERTISING AND SALES PROMOTION

Article 108. Declaration of Policy. – The State shall protect the consumer from misleading
advertisements and fraudulent sales promotion practices.

Article 109. Implementing Agency. – The Department of Trade and Industry shall enforce the
provisions of this Chapter and its implementing rules and regulations: Provided, That with
respect to food, drugs, cosmetics, devices and hazardous substances, it shall be enforced by the
Department of Health.
FALSE, DECEPTIVE AND MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENT

Article 110. False, Deceptive or Misleading Advertisement. – It shall be unlawful for any person
to disseminate or to cause the dissemination of any false, deceptive or misleading advertisement
by Philippine mail or in commerce by print, radio, television, outdoor advertisement or other
medium for the purpose of inducing or which is likely to induce directly or indirectly the
purchase of consumer products or services.

Article 112. Special Advertising Requirements for Food, Drug, Cosmetic, Device, or Hazardous
Substance. –

a) No claim in the advertisement may be made which is not contained in the label or approved by
the concerned department.

b) No person shall advertise any food, drug, cosmetics, device, or hazardous substance in manner
that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its
character, value, quantity, composition, merit, or safety.

c) Where a standard has been prescribed for a food, drug, cosmetic, or device, no person shall
advertise any article or substance in such a manner that it is likely to be mistaken for such
product, unless the article complies with the prescribed standard or regulation.

d) No person shall, in the advertisement of any food, drug, cosmetic, device, or hazardous
substance, make use of any reference to any laboratory report of analysis required to be furnished
to the concerned department, unless such laboratory report is duly approved by such department.

e) Any businessman who is doubtful as to whether his advertisement relative to food, drug,
cosmetic, device, or hazardous substance will violate or does not conform with this Act or the
concerned department's pertinent rules and regulations may apply to the same for consideration
and opinion on such matter before such advertisement is disseminated to the public. In this case,
the concerned department shall give its opinion and notify the applicant of its action within thirty
(30) days from the date of application; otherwise, the application shall be deemed approved.
f) No person shall advertise any food, drug, cosmetic, device, or hazardous substance unless such
product is duly registered and approved by the concerned department for use in any
advertisement.

EXAMPLE:

Leading Philippine Food Companies have reinforced their commitment to responsible

marketing of foods and beverages with the signing of the second edition of the Philippine Pledge
on Responsible Advertising to Children (RAC), in support of parents’ efforts to promote healthy
lifestyles for kids. Signatories to the 2014 Philippine Pledge include Alaska Milk Corporation;
Coca-Cola Far East Ltd.; Magnolia, Inc.; Mars Philippines, Inc.; McDonalds Philippines;
Mondelez Philippines, Inc.; Nestlé Philippines; Pepsico, Inc.; San Miguel Purefoods Company,
Inc.; San Miguel Foods, Inc.; Unilever Philippines, Inc.; Wrigley Philippines, Inc.; and Wyeth
Nutrition

The 2014 Philippine Pledge stipulates that products advertised directly to children below
12 years of age must meet specific nutritional criteria based on scientific evidence and dietary
guidelines. It also states that advertising in primary schools will not be undertaken without the
express consent of the school. Where advertising in schools is used, it should be for educational
purposes.

The pledge, which is in line with international efforts such as the pledges in other
countries, recognizes the special nature and needs of children that require particular care and
diligence on the part of advertisers. Participating companies sign up to this initiative as a
minimum voluntary commitment, but can go further if they so wish.

The initiative is the latest in a string of commitments made by the Philippine Advertising
industry to support the active and healthy lifestyle programme of the Department of Health. The
first Philippine Pledge was signed in 2010. Agreement on the 2014 Initiative among signatory
companies was completed in April. The Pilot Monitoring Service also starts in June, 2014 with
initial findings to be released later in the year.
LEGAL PENALTIES FOR ADVERTISING REGULATIONS

Some advertising violations can result in criminal penalties. These generally result in
misdemeanor penalties, including criminal fees and/or time in jail for up to one year. In more
serious violations, felony charges can be involved, which can result in higher penalties and jail
time of greater than one year.

In addition to possible criminal penalties, many advertising violations lead to private

lawsuits in a civil court of law. These are usually between the advertiser and another company,
or between the advertiser and a group of affected consumers. Civil lawsuits usually result in a
monetary damages award to compensate the non-violating party for their losses.

Defenses are often available to the defendant in an advertising violations lawsuit. These
can include lack of evidence, mistake, and “unclean hands” (i.e., the plaintiff has engaged in a
similar type of wrong).

EXAMPLES OF CONTROVERSIAL AND BANNED FILIPINO ADVERTISMENTS:

 KFC’s “#ChickenSad” Hashtag Ad (2014)

Remember the “chicken crisis” that hit fast-food giant Jollibee back in August 2014?
Customers everywhere were shocked and disappointed after they couldn’t order Chickenjoy and
other items on the menu for weeks.

Even as Jollibee management explained that their systems were undergoing

an “upgrade,” its fast-food rival KFC couldn’t resist capitalizing on its competitor’s moment of
weakness. Riding on the lack of Chickenjoy, KFC slapped the hashtag #ChickenSad on its own
poster and reminded customers Jollibee wasn’t the only one with “Finger lickin’ good” chicken.
 Of course, the poster quickly set off a firestorm among fast-food patrons online. While
some praised KFC’s ingenuity, others condemned the chain for being opportunistic. In a gracious
move, KFC later removed its poster from its social media accounts.

 EQ Diaper’s “Lapu-Lapu” Commercial (2013)

Did inferior quality diapers cause the Battle of Mactan? EQ Diapers would have us think
that with their hugely controversial diaper ad in 2013.

The commercial, which shows Lapu-Lapu challenging Ferdinand Magellan to a fight

after he disliked the diapers the latter gave him, did not sit well with members of the National
Historical Commission and the people of Lapu-Lapu City who condemned it as a mockery and
distortion of history.

The outrage at the commercial later resulted in it being pulled off the airwaves by the
Advertising Board of the Philippines.

 Napoleon Quince’s “Nakatikim Ka Na Ba Ng Kinse Anyos?” (2004)

Destileria Limtuaco, the maker of Napoleon Quince, ignited a public firestorm in 2004
when it posted billboards of its brandy along with the tagline “Nakatikim ka na ba ng kinse
anyos”? (Have you tasted a 15-year-old?).
Protesters slammed the company for the apparent innuendo and successfully petitioned
the Advertising Board of the Philippines to have the billboards removed. Instead of letting the
controversy die, however, the company fought back with lawsuits against the Advertising Board
which went all the way to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately for them, the high tribunal threw
out their case in 2008.